Re: Please help verify signature within Dockerfile

Although I got a solution for the initial problem to use gpgv, I am still curious why all the other methods fail. Any ideas? On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:15:18AM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote: > Hello all, > > I am trying to verify signature of downloaded files when creating a docker > con

Re: Please help verify signature within Dockerfile

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 09:57:24AM +, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > On 30 Jan 2025, at 23:15, Josef Wolf wrote: > > > > I am trying to verify signature of downloaded files when creating a docker > > container. This is what I am trying to do within the Dockerfile: > >

Please help verify signature within Dockerfile

th a given pubkey? Any help? -- Josef Wolf j...@raven.inka.de ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: We have GOT TO make things simpler

world. Sadly. I asked about this in https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2019-October/062767.html if someone with more experience than me wouldn't mind imparting their knowledge. -- Caleb Wolf ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: "best" ed25519/curve25519 setup?

aster key > RSA subkey for signature > RSA subkey for decryption > RSA subkey for authentication > Ed25519 subkey for signature > Curve25519 subkey for authentication > Curve25519 subkey for decryption > > I wonder

Re: Should we trust "MyMail-crypt for Gmail" Chrome extension?

Hi, I know nothing about the extension but would like to react to this: On , ankostis wrote: > This extension is the only alternative to use GPG with gmail in > corporate environments where SMTP ports are blocked (unless we > consider as an "alternative" to manually clear-signing each message > t

Re: Attacks on encrypted communicxatiopn rising in Europe

On , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > >> 3. If no, then how should we permit privacy tools to be > >> circumvented? > > > > Do you honestly believe that this is really possible? That government > > backdoor will stay available only to government and will not be > > misused? > > I never said I believ

Re: Attacks on encrypted communicxatiopn rising in Europe

On , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > 3. If no, then how should we permit privacy tools to be > circumvented? Do you honestly believe that this is really possible? That government backdoor will stay available only to government and will not be misused? As an example I would raise issue of TSA accep

Re: Change agent-socket path

On , Werner Koch wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 01:58, w...@wolfsden.cz said: > > > the building/signing is done in fakeroot environment. Therefore the > > socket path default to ~/.gnupg/S.gnu-agent. Because (at least it seems > > to me) in fakeroot I am root (0) and therefore don't own /run/user/1

Change agent-socket path

Greetings, I'm in need of changing the path to the agent socket, but I cannot find a way to do so. My problem: gpg-agent normally runs in /run/user/1000/gnupg/S.gnu-agent , which is completely fine. However, when building packages (archlinux, makepkg), the building/signing is done in fakeroot envi

gpg: checking created signature failed: Bad signature

just created but is failing? I'm running gnupg 2.0.25-1 on an Arch Linux box via a PuTTY SSH connection. Any help gratefully received! -- /Wolf [GnuPG Key: A8E50255] ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: OpenPGP card usage

> I admit this is a bit odd, No, it's a pretty natural question. I had the same idea > Now when I take the card to another computer, with an empty keyring, > shouldn't I be able to make use of my private key stored on the card? Wishful thinking. Unfortunately it does not work that way. At least

Re: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir `/m/a/etc/naclient/ppcbackup

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 02:13:17AM +0200, Josef Wolf wrote: > I am wondering what this error message > >WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir `/usr/local/etc/backup' > > is trying to tell me. > > This directory is owned by root:myself and has mode 750. So it is &

GNU privacy guard on AIX

'm trying to install the libgpg-error package, I don't understand how one of its libraries, which I assume would be generated as part of the install, is causing the make process to fail. Any suggestions for clearing this error would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tom Wol

WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir `/m/a/etc/naclient/ppcbackup

Hello, I am wondering what this error message WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir `/usr/local/etc/backup' is trying to tell me. This directory is owned by root:myself and has mode 750. So it is writable only by root and readable only by myself and by root. AFAICS, it is as safe as it can g

Re: how long should a password be?

Bill Royds wrote: > > On 5-May-08, at 03:55 , Wolf Canis wrote: > >> There are infinite possibilities. That's the trick. Not the length of a >> password is >> decisive but the quality. The quality of your password decides how much >> effort is necessary to

Re: how long should a password be?

Matt Kinni wrote: > Everyone says it should be as long as possible, but there comes a point > where it's just impossible to remember anything longer than 20 > characters. What do you think? Hello, I would say a password should be between 8 - 12 characters long. But that isn't that important. Eight

Re: how long should a password be?

Sven Radde wrote: > Hi! > > Matt Kinni schrieb: >> Everyone says it should be as long as possible (...) What do you think? > You might find this interesting read: > Interesting article, thanks for the link. :-) > > Also keep in

Re: Revoke a key - What is with the decrypted messages?

Hello, thanks for the answers. My doubts are dispelled. W. Canis signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Revoke a key - What is with the decrypted messages?

Hello all, I created a key one year ago and used this key. Therefore I have a lot decrypted messages. Now I want revoke this key. That's not the problem, I have a revocation certificate. But what is with the decrypted messages to me, can I still encrypt this messages? Or is the secret key invalid t

Re: Need non-writable --homedir

s, chances are that you keep answering the wrong questions. (just kidding :) > Josef Wolf wrote: > >>> Don't most unices have /dev/random nowadays? I never planned to > >>> run this thing on a windows box :) > >> > >> GnuPG has been ported to many p

Re: Need non-writable --homedir

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:05:08PM -0400, David Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 08:42:39PM +0200, Josef Wolf wrote: > > > AFAIK, having random_seed be accessible to unauthorized people is > > not acceptable. Thus I have no choice, I just _have_ to use the > > --no

Re: Need non-writable --homedir

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 05:28:25PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Josef Wolf wrote: > > Don't most unices have /dev/random nowadays? I never planned to run > > this thing on a windows box :) > GnuPG has been ported to many platforms. BeOS, OpenVMS, Win32, and many &

Re: Need non-writable --homedir

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Josef Wolf wrote: > 1. /dev/random isn't available on all platforms. GnuPG's random number > generator is. Don't most unices have /dev/random nowadays? I never planned to run this thing on a wi

Re: Need non-writable --homedir

Thanks for your response, Robert! On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 05:36:33PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Josef Wolf wrote: > > 1. It locks the keyring. --lock-never will avoid this. Is it safe > > to use --lock-never as long as it is guaranteed that _only_ "gpg -e"

Need non-writable --homedir

Hello! I need a setup where the user running "gpg -e -r foobar" is not able to modify keyring contents. I tried: # chown -R root:user ~user/.gnupg # chmod -R o=rwX,g=rX,o= ~user/.gnupg Unfortunately, this don't work because gpg does some write operations in its .gnupg directory: 1. It

Need non-writable --homedir

Hello! I need a setup where the user running "gpg -e -r foobar" is not able to modify keyring contents. I tried: # chown -R root:user ~user/.gnupg # chmod -R o=rwX,g=rX,o= ~user/.gnupg Unfortunately, this don't work because gpg does some write operations in its .gnupg directory: 1. It